Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Anthropic surpasses OpenAI to become most valuable AI startup

qazinform.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 512 posts

Re: Anthropic surpasses OpenAI to become most valuable AI startup

#341

Post by vunderba »

Aurornis wrote: post #172
amazingamazing wrote: post #10

I never want to hear from developers again that they are not susceptible to marketing. I see meet ups specifically about Claude often. Modern tupperware party. A colleague was convinced Claude is better so we played a game. We used the claude code and codex harness and I implemented some prs they needed with gpt5.5 and opus4.7 and asked them to identify which came from which only from the code. Couldn’t tell. Edit: i…

> We used the claude code and codex harness and I implemented some prs they needed with gpt5.5 and opus4.7 and asked them to identify which came from which only from the code. > Couldn’t tell. Why would you expect them to be able to recognize the signature of a model from a pair of PRs? I don’t understand why you think this is a useful test for anything when we have numerous benchmarks that run 100s of tests on model…

Yup, OP is conflating so many things that the comparison has all the scientific rigor of the Pepsi Challenge.

For a developer using an LLM on a daily basis, the experience is about much more than just the resultant code.

There’s everything from:

- how often you had to manually steer the model

- how frequently you needed to course-correct

- how much detail you had to provide up front

- how was the interaction process (sycophantic, etc)

- how well did it handle MCP and external tooling?

- how effectively could it pull in additional information from external sources such as the web?

- how fast did it produce code?

- how much did it cost?

Many of my friends who are devs use things like OpenCode CLI with Openrouter because they switch between the various SOTA models so often. Just because you saw a Claude "meetup" doesn't prove anything other than somebody chose the name because it resonated more than "Generic LLM Meetup".

Re: Anthropic surpasses OpenAI to become most valuable AI startup

#343

Post by SiempreViernes »

jnovek wrote: post #37
amazingamazing wrote: post #10

I never want to hear from developers again that they are not susceptible to marketing. I see meet ups specifically about Claude often. Modern tupperware party. A colleague was convinced Claude is better so we played a game. We used the claude code and codex harness and I implemented some prs they needed with gpt5.5 and opus4.7 and asked them to identify which came from which only from the code. Couldn’t tell. Edit: i…

I can’t tell the difference between code written in vim or vs code but it matters substantially to the person writing the code. There’s stuff beyond just the output that goes into tool choice.

If you told someone "I think vim is better for writing code" and they proposed the comparison above as a way to prove it, would you accept and take part of the test?

Apparently the colleague did take part, so I think the evidence we have is that the colleague agreed with the interpretation that "better" was "produces discernible better code".

Re: Anthropic surpasses OpenAI to become most valuable AI startup

#344

Post by amazingamazing »

SiempreViernes wrote: post #323
amazingamazing wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the effort was the same as was in my test, yes.

Wouldn't the question be if they could tell the tables apart by quality (after insisting one of the two parties made things of superior quality)?

Yes

Re: Anthropic surpasses OpenAI to become most valuable AI startup

#345

Post by orphea »

akillibebe wrote: post #84
orphea wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think Amodei is different?

The choice is not binary. I use DeepSeek (paid) for coding, and Qwen (free) for casual stuff from the browser chat UI.

Not binary, but the parent was talking about OpenAI vs Anthropic.

Re: Anthropic surpasses OpenAI to become most valuable AI startup

#346

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

amazingamazing wrote: post #10

I never want to hear from developers again that they are not susceptible to marketing. I see meet ups specifically about Claude often. Modern tupperware party. A colleague was convinced Claude is better so we played a game. We used the claude code and codex harness and I implemented some prs they needed with gpt5.5 and opus4.7 and asked them to identify which came from which only from the code. Couldn’t tell. Edit: i…

It seems we're moving past the point where it's all about model capability. opus4.7 behaves better for me than gpt5.5 because I'm familiar with its idiosyncrasies. Sounds like you've got a good balance between them.

At the end of the day what matters is which team is better, not which model. If Anthropic continues to feel like the good guy, relatively speaking, then people are gonna chose to spend more time getting to know its products and less time with OpenAPI's and on average Anthropic's will be the more capable teams.

I think vibes are gonna matter more and more going forward. The potential for bad behavior on the part of an AI company is severe. We're gonna have to tolerate whoever we enable in this space, so I propose that we make their marketing teams work as hard as possible to show us which will supply better vibes.

Re: Anthropic surpasses OpenAI to become most valuable AI startup

#347

Post by dboreham »

afavour wrote: post #157
amazingamazing wrote: post #10

I never want to hear from developers again that they are not susceptible to marketing. I see meet ups specifically about Claude often. Modern tupperware party. A colleague was convinced Claude is better so we played a game. We used the claude code and codex harness and I implemented some prs they needed with gpt5.5 and opus4.7 and asked them to identify which came from which only from the code. Couldn’t tell. Edit: i…

You're overestimating the extent to which individual developers have a choice here. My employer signed up for a Claude Code membership, I use Claude Code. I cannot use Codex. Anecdotally I hear of folks with workplace Claude Code subscriptions all the time. I'm not sure I've ever heard someone talk about their workplace Codex subscription. Anthropic clearly did a far better job chasing corporate customers while OpenA…

I have lots of choice (I own the company) but I'm still not going to switch from Claude until I see evidence that the alternative is meaningfully better. So far I don't see that evidence. In the past I've looked at using competitive products and it turned out to be a painful experience (Cursor didn't work at all on my computer, Google thing -- whatever it was at that time -- required dependencies I wasn't willing to install). I'm sure these issues have been resolved since but why would I spent time kicking the tires of another product just to have it work "as well"? Claude's cost to me is minimal so there's no cost savings to be made.

fwiw nobody "marketed to me". I picked Claude because friends were using it with great success and they helped me get started with suggestions on prompt style. Before that I'd played around with various LLMs for coding but not done any actual production work.

Re: Anthropic surpasses OpenAI to become most valuable AI startup

#349

Post by SiempreViernes »

spider-mario wrote: post #97
neosat wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument is fine but different from the claim the OP is making. You cannot simply make a claim that (model + harness) X is better than Y, but then have no discernible difference in the output. Subjectively, people might still prefer one over due to anything from design to marketing, but that's very different from the claim that X is better than Y for coding (see: "A colleague was convinced Claude is better"). Ba…

> You cannot simply make a claim that (model + harness) X is better than Y, but then have no discernible difference in the output. You definitely can in principle; that’s the entire point of the comment you are responding to. If one tool completes it in 10 minutes with little hand holding, and the other does it in one hour at 4× the cost and while needing a lot of steering, the former is arguably better even if the e…

The colleague implicitly agreed that comparing the output was a valid way to settle the matter as they took part in the test, so they weren't using "better" in the way you propose.

Re: Anthropic surpasses OpenAI to become most valuable AI startup

#350

Post by Capricorn2481 »

tornikeo wrote: post #101
antirez wrote: post #83

In this game, who wins - in the long term - is who has the best model: so far OpenAI is ahead, so in the long term this is what matters. However, for the same reason, if in the future open weight models will be very near the quality of frontier labs, Anthropic and OpenAI will be out of business very soon. The game they play only make sense if their SOTA models do things that other models can't do at a comparable leve…

IMO bad take. You can theoretically do most things AWS does most of the time, yet people pay premium for it and keep paying for it, even though alternatives are cheaper, simpler and more performant. I'd bet you that after 20 years OpenAI and Anthropic would still be around and kicking. You might have a subpar product (for the price) but the reputation and history is what makes people open their wallets.

> You can theoretically do most things AWS does most of the time, yet people pay premium for it and keep paying for it, even though alternatives are cheaper, simpler and more performant

It's going to be debated forever whether wiring your own open source tech has a lower development cost than the equivalent AWS bill. For me, that's too broad a statement, as I have seen it go both ways. What is true: There is only some knowledge overlap between maintaining an AWS stack and having your own Prometheus logged, ceph backed set of boxes.

That is not the case with LLMs. At least, not right now. They roughly work the same and are easy to pick up. They are about as straightforward of an interface as it gets, and using them in "advanced" ways could be summarized on an index card. They are relatively fungible.

I don't see a world where OpenAI runs on brand recognition alone. It needs to be more convenient to run than local LLMs. They've done that by buying so much of the worlds hardware that it becomes more expensive to run these things locally.

Post reply on HN